Second Complaint On Almost Identical Facts As First Complaint Not Maintainable; If Core Of Both Complaints Is Same, Second Complaint Ought Not To Be Entertained: SC
|The Supreme Court has reiterated that a second complaint on "almost identical facts" as the first complaint would not be maintainable, emphasising that "if the core of both complaints is same," the second complaint ought not to be entertained.
The Court set aside the Gauhati High Court’s judgment which had previously allowed the second complaint, upholding the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s (CJM) original dismissal of the second complaint. The Bench held that a second complaint on identical facts was not maintainable.
A Bench of Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal reiterated, “If the earlier disposal of the complaint was on merits and in a manner known to law, the second complaint on “almost identical facts” which were raised in the first complaint would not be maintainable. What has been laid down is that “if the core of both the complaints is same”, the second complaint ought not to be entertained.”
Senior Advocate Pijush K. Roy represented the appellants, while Senior Advocate Manish Goswami appeared for the respondents.
A complaint was filed by the second respondent with the CJM which was forwarded for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. An FIR was subsequently registered under Sections 406, 420, and 34 of the IPC. After the investigation, a Final Report was submitted by police. The complainant subsequently filed a written objection requesting cognizance of the case. The CJM reviewed the protest petition but accepted the Final Report, holding that the investigation did not suffer from any infirmities.
The second respondent, however, filed a new complaint with the same allegations. The CJM directed an investigation under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. following the recording of initial statements of witnesses. The appellants challenged this order in the High Court, which directed the CJM to reconsider the maintainability of the second complaint. Following this, the CJM dismissed the second complaint as not maintainable. The Sessions Judge overturned the CJM’s order, remanding the case for reconsideration. The High Court later confirmed the Sessions Judge’s order, leading to this appeal in the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court examined Section 300(1) of the Cr.P.C., which prevents retrials for the same offence on identical facts. The Court referenced the Latin legal maxim "Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa" (no one shall be vexed twice for the same cause), noting that this principle applied when an individual had already been tried by a competent court. In this case, the Court found that since the protest petition had been fully considered and rejected by the CJM, and the Final Report accepted, there was no basis for allowing a second complaint with identical facts.
“The different situations where a second complaint or a second protest petition would be maintainable and would not be maintainable were specifically discussed and decided, in those decisions. In short, the maintainability or otherwise of the second complaint would depend upon how the earlier complaint happened to be rejected/dismissed at the first instance,” the Bench clarified.
The Court referred to its decision in Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar (1962), which established that a second complaint on the same facts is only permissible under “exceptional circumstances,” such as an incomplete record or a misunderstanding of the complaint’s nature. The Court explained that when a complaint is dismissed on its merits, a second complaint should not be entertained unless specific exceptional conditions are met.
Similarly, in Samta Naidu v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2020), the Apex Court held that if a Magistrate, upon a full inquiry, dismissed a complaint based on its merits, a second complaint on the same facts was not maintainable. In the present case as well, the Bench noted that both the protest petition and the original complaint were considered and dismissed after the court found no infirmity in the investigation.
Consequently, the Court held, “A scanning of the second complaint dated 20.07.2011 would reveal that none of the situations permissible in terms of the decisions referred supra exist in the case at hand to maintain the said complaint. When that be the position, the learned Sessions Judge as also the High Court were not justified in interfering with the order passed by the learned CJM dated 12.07.2012 holding the second complaint as not maintainable in law and issuing further direction.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals.
Cause Title: Subrata Choudhury @ Santosh Choudhury & Ors. v. The State of Assam & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 834)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocate Pijush K. Roy; AOR Rajan K. Chourasia; Advocate Kakali Roy
Respondents: Senior Advocate Manish Goswami; AOR Ankit Roy and Rameshwar Prasad Goyal; Advocates Priyank Adhyaru and Fayaz